Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: St John Evangelist

Now let's say that hypothetically, unless you vote for B, A will win the election. Do you refuse to vote B because you can't have a pro-abort as your representative? I think it would be highly immoral for you to refuse to vote B in such circuмstances.

You have thus admirably exposed your false principles.  Based on your "lesser evil" reasoning, you think it "immoral" to NOT vote for a PRO-ABORTION candidate (under certain circuмstances) ... and not even just "permissible" to vote for him.  You have made my point better than I ever could.  According to CATHOLIC principles, you CANNOT vote for such a candidate just because he's LESS evil.  You cannot vote for an evil candidate.  You are a Protestant utilitarian and not a Catholic when it comes to electoral politics.

This is the thing though, in the circuмstance I described, I am not voting for a pro-abortion candidate, rather I am voting AGAINST sodomy, human sacrifice, suppression of religion, etc. Intention can change the morality of an act. For example, shooting somebody in one circuмstance is attempt to murder, and in another it is self-defence. If I voted for him because I supported his abortion platform, I would indeed sin.

Well, that's simply not true.  Let's take the classic lifeboat example.  We have 10 people on a sinking lifeboat.  By throwing 1 overboard, we could save the other 9.  Can you do it?  Your "intention" isn't to kill the 1 person, but it's to save the other 9.  Sorry.  That does NOT work with the principle of double effect.  First rule of double effect (and I'll go through them all) is that the act in and of itself cannot be evil.

What you're articulating is END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.  Yes, my intention, the END, is to save the 9.  But the good end does not justify the evil means, the killing of the 1 innocent person.

In your shooting example, shooting someone is not intrinsically evil.  As St. Thomas says regarding the act of self-defense, you are defending your life, with an unintended effect that you're taking someone else's life.  Now, if shooting someone were intrinsically evil, then you couldn't do it, not even to save your own life and the state could never execute a criminal.

Quote from: St John Evangelist

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: St John Evangelist

Now let's say that hypothetically, unless you vote for B, A will win the election. Do you refuse to vote B because you can't have a pro-abort as your representative? I think it would be highly immoral for you to refuse to vote B in such circuмstances.

You have thus admirably exposed your false principles.  Based on your "lesser evil" reasoning, you think it "immoral" to NOT vote for a PRO-ABORTION candidate (under certain circuмstances) ... and not even just "permissible" to vote for him.  You have made my point better than I ever could.  According to CATHOLIC principles, you CANNOT vote for such a candidate just because he's LESS evil.  You cannot vote for an evil candidate.  You are a Protestant utilitarian and not a Catholic when it comes to electoral politics.

This is the thing though, in the circuмstance I described, I am not voting for a pro-abortion candidate, rather I am voting AGAINST sodomy, human sacrifice, suppression of religion, etc. Intention can change the morality of an act. For example, shooting somebody in one circuмstance is attempt to murder, and in another it is self-defence. If I voted for him because I supported his abortion platform, I would indeed sin.

Well, that's simply not true.  Let's take the classic lifeboat example.  We have 10 people on a sinking lifeboat.  By throwing 1 overboard, we could save the other 9.  Can you do it?  Your "intention" isn't to kill the 1 person, but it's to save the other 9.  Sorry.  That does NOT work with the principle of double effect.  First rule of double effect (and I'll go through them all) is that the act in and of itself cannot be evil.

I can hardly imagine an election where double effect would not be the concept at play rather than "lesser of evils."  I suppose if Hillary was going to suspend all of her other duties as president other than making sure abortion mills were taken care of, and Trump was going to suspend all of his duties as president other than invading w/o provocation some dune-coon nation to kill them to exploit their resources, the "lesser of evils" prohibition would forbid voting for either.  See how extreme it would have to be for choosing between two candidates to be forbidden.  Short of that, "lesser of evil" is a misnomer escaping tobacco stained lips of bullshitters who can't even spell Catholic.

Quote from: OHCA

See how extreme it would have to be for choosing between two candidates to be forbidden.  Short of that, "lesser of evil" is a misnomer escaping tobacco stained lips of bullshitters who can't even spell Catholic.

[Double-effect] allows you to choose a candidate who has some good and some evil positions ... as long as the double-effect criteria are met.

And the example I gave would be about the only scenario in which you would not have a double-effect alternative for whom you could vote.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: OHCA

See how extreme it would have to be for choosing between two candidates to be forbidden.  Short of that, "lesser of evil" is a misnomer escaping tobacco stained lips of bullshitters who can't even spell Catholic.

[Double-effect] allows you to choose a candidate who has some good and some evil positions ... as long as the double-effect criteria are met.

And the example I gave would be about the only scenario in which you would not have a double-effect alternative for whom you could vote.

There are lots of double-effect scenarios which would fail the test.

Let's say that there's a Pro Abortion candidate whose economic policies are great.  I vote for that person's economic policies with the unintended / unwilled secondary effect that the candidate is Pro Abortion.  This fails the double-effect test that the good effect must outweigh the bad effect (economic policy does not outweigh life issues).  Some "Catholics" attempted to justify their vote for Obama on these grounds.

Double-effect does NOT let you select between two evil candidates.  You cannot make one evil choice in order to prevent a more evil choice (that's actually lesser evil, not double effect).  See, the act itself that occasions the unintended evil effect must in itself be either good or indifferent, and cannot be bad.  It also violates a double-effect principle because the good effect (blocking the worse candidate) happens as a result of the bad effect (choosing a bad, albeit less bad, candidate).

Double-effect does clearly apply to Trump, however, so IMO any Catholic can vote for him.

Now, as Matthew pointed out, we are usually not under strict obligation to take a double-effect action.  So, for instance, I could fail to kill someone else to protect my own life, thereby losing my life, without committing grave sin.  In fact, it would be considered heroic virtue if one does it out of love for the assailant.  So, for instance, women sometimes allow their own lives to be lost in childbirth rather than taking some double-effect remedy to save their own lives.  That too would be heroic virtue.

On the contrary, however, let's say that I see a THIRD PARTY being violently attacked and I have a gun.  In that case, I AM under obligation to defend the life of the victim even through lethal force.

In conclude that, in this case, that of a Pro Life (at least ostensibly) candidate vs. a Pro Abortion candidate, provided that the Pro Life candidate can be voted for at least by way of double-effect principles, a positive obligation exists to take that action.  In other words, I liken this to the situation of seeing an innocent victim being assaulted and having to take lethal action in order to save that person's life.

So, based on Catholic principles, I don't see how a Catholic is not actually obligated to vote for Trump.

Candidate A supports partial-birth abortions in birth defect situations but no abortions in out of wedlock situations.  Candidate B supports 2nd-trimester abortions in out of wedlock situations but no abortions in birth defect situations.  "Lesser of evils" prohibition would dictate that a Catholic cannot vote for either candidate.

Candidate A supports partial-birth abortions on demand.  Candidate B supports 2nd-trimester abortions on demand.  This IS NOT a prohibited "lesser of evils" situation.  You are not choosing who lives and who dies.  You are simply restricting abortion as much as you can in light of the options.  Fewer abortions is a good thing.  If you're choosing 5 niggers be aborted or 10 wetbacks be aborted, that too is prohibited.  But generally reducing the number without distinction, without picking who lives and who dies, is good.

Scenario 2 could be tricky.  Yes, if there's a candidate who wants to ban 3rd-trimester abortions, then you would be voting for a ban on 3rd-trimester abortions.  But if this candidate positively supports 2nd-trimester abortions on demand, then that would be a positive evil ... partly based on the status quo.  My wife asked me a similar question the other day.  She asked if one could vote for a law that bans abortions except in the case of rape and incest, etc.  I responded that it depends on how the law is written.  If the law is written, "all abortions shall be banned except in the cases of ...", then one could vote for it ... because one is voting to ban most abortions.  This would be negative evil (not going far enough) rather than positive evil.  But if the law stated, positively, "abortion shall be legal in the case of rape and incest", then one could NOT vote for this, because one would be positively declaring such abortions to be legal and licit.

So, in the case you cited, given the current situation, if the candidate stated that "I defend a woman's right to have an abortion through the second trimester," then we could not vote for that candidate.  But if the candidate stated, "I will fight to ban abortion in the third trimester," then one could vote for the candidate.  So, if the perspective is to ban something that's currently permitted, that's a positive good.  But, if the perspective is to permit something that's currently banned, then it's a positive evil.  If there's a positive assertion of a right for a woman to have a 2nd semester abortion, then one could not vote for that.  If it's just a negative thing along the lines of just saying that 3rd trimester abortions should be banned, then one could vote for that.

Though I am sometimes caustic sometimes mocking (sometimes an unabashed ass), this exchange/quibble that I have engaged Ladislaus in is not representative of my general impression of him.  I agree with him on many things and find his positions very well reasoned.  This HAS NOT been a "here we go again..." disagreement with some lunk-head that leaves me wondering who ties his shoes every time he opens his mouth (y'all know who you are).

Here's an interesting fact:

A Republican has been elected President of the United States every year that the Cubs have won the World Series.

I guess there's no reason for Democrats to even bother going to the polls now.